What the hell was that I just saw on the Anderson Cooper Show
Okay, I believe in civil discussions but what I just saw on the Anderson Cooper Show was not just civil, it was a damn garden party. Some guy, a pro-gay advocate (yaaahhh!) was debating Exodus International head Alan Chambers on whether or not Ted Haggard was believable in his claim that he was no longer gay.
The young man talking for our side was articulate and knew his facts. But he was too nice. I personally felf that the discussion was not geared towards what it should have been.
Sears got off the subject of Haggard and used the "I was not happy with being gay and I should have the right to change my life" argument. That was all well and good.
That young man arguing our point should have said, "well that's nice but why does the ex-gay movement make it a point to speak out against pro-gay laws and ordinances."
This is where the debate should have been. The fact that this question was not asked just goes to prove yet again how we are always using the playbook of the anti-gay industry. We allow them to set the tone of the argument and we follow them like hungry puppies, unable or unwilling to flip the script and put them on the defensive.
I hardly ever hear the fact that supposed "ex-gays" like Stephen Bennett, Michael Johnston, Alan Chambers, and Melissa Fryrear are willing pawns in the war against the gay community. At the same time they say that they should be willing to make a choice about their lives, they work to make life harder for us who are happy with our lgbt orientation.
When will their subterfuge be made public? Probably not until we get past our garden party mode.
Wasting time in Paris eating Snicker bars
I am going to be honest here. I understand why some of us are upset over the Snickers bar commercial that aired during Superbowl Sunday, but it really isn't worth all of the controversy.
I saw the commercial. It was stupid. End of story.
For that matter, I really don't care what Paris Hilton says. Granted, her comments were rude and apparently hateful but for God' s sake, other than being rich, her biggest claim to fame is making a porno. If anything, the porno relaxed my concerns that she was anorexic. Paris is a very healthy looking woman with her clothes off.
Meanwhile in the real world . . .
I found yet another web page that posted Paul Cameron's research as gospel truth,
Ted Haggard claims to be completely straight. From struggling with homosexuality all of his life to being completely gay-free. Despite all that has been said and done, my heart goes out to Mr. Haggard and his family. I'm also moving out of the way because when and if he suffers another fall, it's gonna hurt.
In Texas, so-called "pro-family" groups are angry at former ally Governor Rick Perry because he made the HPV vaccine mandatory for young girls. Apparently according to them, inoculating young girls from getting cancer encourages promiscuity. A very interesting part of this story that no one is talking about is why so-called "pro-family" groups oppose making HPV vaccine mandatory. The reasons go deeper than trying to discourage promiscuity. In several columns in the past, spokespeople of so-called "pro-family" groups have said:
"Gay marriage will encourage children to experiment with homosexuality. This will put more kids at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, ‘gay bowel syndrome,’ human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases."
This vaccine takes away an arsenal from their anti-gay lies.
Let's focus on the things that do matter in our fight for equality and self determination.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Monday, February 05, 2007
Me and 'gay bowel syndrome'
Yeah, I know that everyone is talking about last night's Snickers commercial and I have certain opinions on it too.
But forgive me if I focus on something else.
I am moving back the deadline for turning in my manuscript to my publisher until March 1. One reason is a good one. The other reason is interesting.
The good reason being that for the first time in two years, I will be able to take a vacation from my job. Long story, fast ending - I have a week to tie up loose ends and compile my book's index. The vacation begins next week, so naturally I am happy about that.
Now for the very interesting reason and thus the title of my post. Ever since I began my book, I have been trying to find concrete proof that the term "gay bowel syndrome" does not exist. The good news is that in legitimate media sources, I have found very little on it. This is the most complete thing I found:
According to the "Free Online Dictionary and Thesaurus," http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com:
"Gay bowel syndrome was a term first used in 1976 prior to the discovery of AIDS, to describe a series of parasitic disorders caused by oral/anal contact and allegedly related to gay male sexual activity. The term was abandoned by the medical community in the 1980s because the problems that attributed to it were not specific to homosexuals, not confined to just the bowels, nor did it meet the medical definition of a syndrome."
The bad news - a: the term is practically everywhere on anti-gay industry sites and b: my digging in credible medical sources sometimes found me accidentally glancing at interesting, albeit, disgusting images of the human body.
Yet another thing to "thank" the anti-gay industry for.
I also found where the term was stricken from a medical textbook in 2001. But I want to really nail down the fact that the "gay bowel syndrome" is obsolete. In other words, I want more proof . Therefore, in the final weeks before I turn my manuscript in to my publisher, I have to gird my stomach from nausea and keep looking until I find what I need.
So you will forgive me for not focusing on the Snickers commercial. I have a feeling that I won't want food for a while.
Yeah, I know that everyone is talking about last night's Snickers commercial and I have certain opinions on it too.
But forgive me if I focus on something else.
I am moving back the deadline for turning in my manuscript to my publisher until March 1. One reason is a good one. The other reason is interesting.
The good reason being that for the first time in two years, I will be able to take a vacation from my job. Long story, fast ending - I have a week to tie up loose ends and compile my book's index. The vacation begins next week, so naturally I am happy about that.
Now for the very interesting reason and thus the title of my post. Ever since I began my book, I have been trying to find concrete proof that the term "gay bowel syndrome" does not exist. The good news is that in legitimate media sources, I have found very little on it. This is the most complete thing I found:
According to the "Free Online Dictionary and Thesaurus," http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com:
"Gay bowel syndrome was a term first used in 1976 prior to the discovery of AIDS, to describe a series of parasitic disorders caused by oral/anal contact and allegedly related to gay male sexual activity. The term was abandoned by the medical community in the 1980s because the problems that attributed to it were not specific to homosexuals, not confined to just the bowels, nor did it meet the medical definition of a syndrome."
The bad news - a: the term is practically everywhere on anti-gay industry sites and b: my digging in credible medical sources sometimes found me accidentally glancing at interesting, albeit, disgusting images of the human body.
Yet another thing to "thank" the anti-gay industry for.
I also found where the term was stricken from a medical textbook in 2001. But I want to really nail down the fact that the "gay bowel syndrome" is obsolete. In other words, I want more proof . Therefore, in the final weeks before I turn my manuscript in to my publisher, I have to gird my stomach from nausea and keep looking until I find what I need.
So you will forgive me for not focusing on the Snickers commercial. I have a feeling that I won't want food for a while.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Hate crimes legislation and Dire Consequences
It gets frustrating to seek the depths that the anti-gay industry will stoop to in its quest to demonize the gay community and deny us any protection under law.
Case in point: Americans for Truth About Homosexuality's latest batch of lies about hate crimes legislation.
The piece claims that adding homosexuality to hate crimes legislation will ultimately lead to a curtailing of some Chrisitians' first amendment right to free speech.
This is a lie.
Even sadder than the fact that we need hate crimes legislation at all is the constant distortion tactics used by members of the anti-gay industry when they speak out against it.
Hate crimes protection already exists for certain groups but you never hear the religious right whining about it. They only sound the alarm when someone thinks of adding the gay community the groups protected by hate crimes legislation.
Then they use what I like to call the Dire Consequences tactic in order to scare Christians. The anti-gay industry constantly raises the notion that creating laws protecting the interests of gays and lesbians will lead to negative consequences, but they hardly ever provide actual proof as to the validity of these charges
In this particular case, Peter LaBarbera uses incidents that took place in foreign countries to make the claim that hate crimes legislation for the gay community will eventually lead to Christians going to jail for speaking out against homosexuality.
Hate crimes legislation do not cover speech. They cover motivation behind violent crimes. Christians who declare in that homosexuality is a sin are in no danger of going to jail if homosexuality is added in hate crimes legislation.
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality is clearly trying to motivate their troops based on fear - a most un-Christian tactic.
It gets frustrating to seek the depths that the anti-gay industry will stoop to in its quest to demonize the gay community and deny us any protection under law.
Case in point: Americans for Truth About Homosexuality's latest batch of lies about hate crimes legislation.
The piece claims that adding homosexuality to hate crimes legislation will ultimately lead to a curtailing of some Chrisitians' first amendment right to free speech.
This is a lie.
Even sadder than the fact that we need hate crimes legislation at all is the constant distortion tactics used by members of the anti-gay industry when they speak out against it.
Hate crimes protection already exists for certain groups but you never hear the religious right whining about it. They only sound the alarm when someone thinks of adding the gay community the groups protected by hate crimes legislation.
Then they use what I like to call the Dire Consequences tactic in order to scare Christians. The anti-gay industry constantly raises the notion that creating laws protecting the interests of gays and lesbians will lead to negative consequences, but they hardly ever provide actual proof as to the validity of these charges
In this particular case, Peter LaBarbera uses incidents that took place in foreign countries to make the claim that hate crimes legislation for the gay community will eventually lead to Christians going to jail for speaking out against homosexuality.
Hate crimes legislation do not cover speech. They cover motivation behind violent crimes. Christians who declare in that homosexuality is a sin are in no danger of going to jail if homosexuality is added in hate crimes legislation.
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality is clearly trying to motivate their troops based on fear - a most un-Christian tactic.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
A dangerous change of heart underscores community problems
Venus Magazine, a publication that for 13 years targeted the Black gay and lesbian community, is now a voice for the ex-gay movement.
Its publisher, Charlene Cothran, recently announced that she has been “redeemed”; is no longer a lesbian; and is changing the mission and direction of the magazine. On the Web site she writes, “As the publisher of a 13-year-old periodical [ that ] targets Black gays and lesbians, I have had the opportunity to publicly address thousands, influencing closeted people to ‘come out’ and stand up for them selves, which is particularly difficult in the African-American community.
This is not a joke. It is for real and it is sad. From reading the article, I can tell that Ms. Cothran isn't one of the usual "ex-gay for pay" who are employed by the anti-gay industry. She genuinely believes that God spoke to her heart and made her change her orientation and her magazine's focus.
I sincerely hope that anyone reading this won't be forming any thoughts to send Ms. Cothran negative emails. It is the last thing she needs.
Her changing the direction of her magazine covers so many issues our community tends to ignore.
It has been my experience that so many African-Americans lgbts have a problem reconciling our cultural ideas of faith and God to our orientation. We view our orientation as lgbts as separate to our identities as African-Americans.
And may be this is because of the second issue the article brings up.
If this story was about a predominantly white gay magazine, it would get a lot of attention. I strongly suspect that since this is an predominantly African-American magazine, it will not get the attention it deserves.
This is indicative of how the mainstream gay community tends to ignore lgbts of color. In the recent conversations we have all had about the "down low" no one has ever said that African-American gays and lesbians feel that we have to pick which community we will invest ourselves in. Both communities tell us that we must sacrifice a part of ourselves. The African-American community tells us to be closeted, while the gay community tells us to be silent, remain in the background, and be constantly reminded about how we don't "fit" someone's idea of a perfect gay, be it due to income, racial heritage, or social background.
And take it from me; an African-American in the closet tends to get more support from the Black community than an out African-American gets from the gay community.
The gay community needs to address the idea that our identities as lgbts is multi-faceted and sometimes dependent on sociological and cultural factors. The attempt to homogenize the gay and lesbian community into one single entity dependent on a single fight for equality (i.e. gay marriage) or a single gathering (i.e. gay pride rallies), or single images (i.e. middle class white gays) harms us more than anything the anti-gay industry can do.
The ironic thing about this situation is that I read in another article that some gays interrupted a Senate hearing in Indiana when a bill banning same-sex marriage made it out of committee. Apparently they began to sing "We Shall Overcome."
They should have changed the lyrics to "Some of Us Shall Overcome."
Venus Magazine, a publication that for 13 years targeted the Black gay and lesbian community, is now a voice for the ex-gay movement.
Its publisher, Charlene Cothran, recently announced that she has been “redeemed”; is no longer a lesbian; and is changing the mission and direction of the magazine. On the Web site she writes, “As the publisher of a 13-year-old periodical [ that ] targets Black gays and lesbians, I have had the opportunity to publicly address thousands, influencing closeted people to ‘come out’ and stand up for them selves, which is particularly difficult in the African-American community.
This is not a joke. It is for real and it is sad. From reading the article, I can tell that Ms. Cothran isn't one of the usual "ex-gay for pay" who are employed by the anti-gay industry. She genuinely believes that God spoke to her heart and made her change her orientation and her magazine's focus.
I sincerely hope that anyone reading this won't be forming any thoughts to send Ms. Cothran negative emails. It is the last thing she needs.
Her changing the direction of her magazine covers so many issues our community tends to ignore.
It has been my experience that so many African-Americans lgbts have a problem reconciling our cultural ideas of faith and God to our orientation. We view our orientation as lgbts as separate to our identities as African-Americans.
And may be this is because of the second issue the article brings up.
If this story was about a predominantly white gay magazine, it would get a lot of attention. I strongly suspect that since this is an predominantly African-American magazine, it will not get the attention it deserves.
This is indicative of how the mainstream gay community tends to ignore lgbts of color. In the recent conversations we have all had about the "down low" no one has ever said that African-American gays and lesbians feel that we have to pick which community we will invest ourselves in. Both communities tell us that we must sacrifice a part of ourselves. The African-American community tells us to be closeted, while the gay community tells us to be silent, remain in the background, and be constantly reminded about how we don't "fit" someone's idea of a perfect gay, be it due to income, racial heritage, or social background.
And take it from me; an African-American in the closet tends to get more support from the Black community than an out African-American gets from the gay community.
The gay community needs to address the idea that our identities as lgbts is multi-faceted and sometimes dependent on sociological and cultural factors. The attempt to homogenize the gay and lesbian community into one single entity dependent on a single fight for equality (i.e. gay marriage) or a single gathering (i.e. gay pride rallies), or single images (i.e. middle class white gays) harms us more than anything the anti-gay industry can do.
The ironic thing about this situation is that I read in another article that some gays interrupted a Senate hearing in Indiana when a bill banning same-sex marriage made it out of committee. Apparently they began to sing "We Shall Overcome."
They should have changed the lyrics to "Some of Us Shall Overcome."
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Ignore and repeat, ignore and repeat
The Fox News Channel is in trouble dealing with a pro-Republican bias.
By now, you are rolling your eyes and saying "so what else is new" just as I did when I first read about the situation.
On several different programs, the channel repeated a discredited story about Senator Barrack Obama's schooling. According to Fox, Obama was trained in the art of anti-Americanism when he was a six-year old child.
Okay that is too severe but it's not off the mark as to what Fox News's inferences are about Senator Obama. Apparently "swiftboating" (I know its a jaded word but I couldn't resist) is something that can be to do someone besides John Kerry.
What makes this story relevant to me is that when it was discovered that the story about Senator Obama was not true, some pundits on Fox News continued to repeat it as truth.
Kind of reminds me of the anti-gay industry.
There is a constant drumbeat with the ant-gay industry about us. According to them, the gay and lesbian identity is indigenous with disease, irresponsible behavior, and general sadness. On almost every so-called "pro-family" web page, one will find this lie.
That is the thing we have to combat. Our identities as gay and lesbian people is not related to how we have sex but who we love.
But we have been dancing around this issue too much. The anti-gay industry has been lying about us from day one and we need to bring attention to this fact. As long as we focus on "winning hearts and minds" and ignore people like Pete LaBarbera, Lou Sheldon, and Matt Barber when they go for the jugular. we deserve to be "swiftboated."
When the lies about Senator Obama's schooling began, his people jumped on them before they had a chance to develop.
We should start taking that hint.
The Fox News Channel is in trouble dealing with a pro-Republican bias.
By now, you are rolling your eyes and saying "so what else is new" just as I did when I first read about the situation.
On several different programs, the channel repeated a discredited story about Senator Barrack Obama's schooling. According to Fox, Obama was trained in the art of anti-Americanism when he was a six-year old child.
Okay that is too severe but it's not off the mark as to what Fox News's inferences are about Senator Obama. Apparently "swiftboating" (I know its a jaded word but I couldn't resist) is something that can be to do someone besides John Kerry.
What makes this story relevant to me is that when it was discovered that the story about Senator Obama was not true, some pundits on Fox News continued to repeat it as truth.
Kind of reminds me of the anti-gay industry.
There is a constant drumbeat with the ant-gay industry about us. According to them, the gay and lesbian identity is indigenous with disease, irresponsible behavior, and general sadness. On almost every so-called "pro-family" web page, one will find this lie.
That is the thing we have to combat. Our identities as gay and lesbian people is not related to how we have sex but who we love.
But we have been dancing around this issue too much. The anti-gay industry has been lying about us from day one and we need to bring attention to this fact. As long as we focus on "winning hearts and minds" and ignore people like Pete LaBarbera, Lou Sheldon, and Matt Barber when they go for the jugular. we deserve to be "swiftboated."
When the lies about Senator Obama's schooling began, his people jumped on them before they had a chance to develop.
We should start taking that hint.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Quantifying discrimination
I see Pastor Ken Hutcherson is on the loose again.
Hutcherson, who obviously never met a microphone or self-aggrandizing adjective he didn't like, is getting help from Washington's Slavic community in his attempt to overturn the state law that bans discrimination against the state's gay and lesbian community. Hutcherson believes that if the law isn't overturned, it could lead to gay marriage.
Oh gasp and swoon!
Actually, of all the members of the anti-gay industry, I find Hutcherson the most refreshing. Unlike our friend Peter LaBarbera, James Dobson, et. al., Hutcherson does not hide behind patronizing rhetoric and lies.
He straight up don't like us gays and lesbians and he will not play games about it.
But Mr. Hutcherson is wrong, plain and simple.
The law Washington passed bans discrimination against the gay community in areas such as housing and employment. As I understand it (and someone please correct me if I am wrong) churches are exempt from this law, meaning Mr. Hutcherson will not be forced to hire anyone who is a gay or lesbian.
So why does Mr. Hutcherson feel that gays and lesbians don't deserve to work and live safe from discrimination? Using the excuse that Washington's anti-discrimination law could lead to gay marriage is a pitiful lie, designed to hide why Mr. Hutcherson wants to do away with these laws.
Apparently I should take back my earlier statement. Maybe Mr. Hutcherson did learn a bit of subterfuge and deception from LaBarbera and Dobson.
It is obvious he didn't learn it from the God he claims to serve.
I see Pastor Ken Hutcherson is on the loose again.
Hutcherson, who obviously never met a microphone or self-aggrandizing adjective he didn't like, is getting help from Washington's Slavic community in his attempt to overturn the state law that bans discrimination against the state's gay and lesbian community. Hutcherson believes that if the law isn't overturned, it could lead to gay marriage.
Oh gasp and swoon!
Actually, of all the members of the anti-gay industry, I find Hutcherson the most refreshing. Unlike our friend Peter LaBarbera, James Dobson, et. al., Hutcherson does not hide behind patronizing rhetoric and lies.
He straight up don't like us gays and lesbians and he will not play games about it.
But Mr. Hutcherson is wrong, plain and simple.
The law Washington passed bans discrimination against the gay community in areas such as housing and employment. As I understand it (and someone please correct me if I am wrong) churches are exempt from this law, meaning Mr. Hutcherson will not be forced to hire anyone who is a gay or lesbian.
So why does Mr. Hutcherson feel that gays and lesbians don't deserve to work and live safe from discrimination? Using the excuse that Washington's anti-discrimination law could lead to gay marriage is a pitiful lie, designed to hide why Mr. Hutcherson wants to do away with these laws.
Apparently I should take back my earlier statement. Maybe Mr. Hutcherson did learn a bit of subterfuge and deception from LaBarbera and Dobson.
It is obvious he didn't learn it from the God he claims to serve.
Friday, January 26, 2007
An item for the echo chamber
According to news reports, U.S. Representative and wannabe presidential candidate Tom Tancredo wants to get rid of Congressional Black and Hispanic caucuses. He calls them racist because they supposedly focus on race.
Here we go; an item for Sean Hannity, John Gibson, and Bill O'Reilly to beat to death without courtesy of looking deeper at the issue.
Actually Tancredo's ignorance underscores an untalked about problem about race in this country. It used to be that some took the frame of mind of "so and so is from that race therefore he is inferior." Now people seem to be saying "so and so is from that race, but I can overlook it if he doesn't throw it in my face."
Seems to me that ignoring someone's cultural background is just as bad as discriminating against them because of it.
I am sure that sooner or later, the echo chamber of Fox News will focus on Tancredo's comments, conveniently ignoring the fact that story of the white legislator who turned down for membership in the Congressional Black Caucus (the story that started the entire mess) is not true. And I am sure that the guests they call to debate the point of view against Tancredo's comments will be "lukewarm liberals."
Or better yet, if these guests make even a substantial point against Tancredo's point of view, I am sure that O'Reilly, Hannity, Gibson, or whoever will conveniently interrupt them or try to lure them on some ideological tangent having nothing to do with Tancredo's comment.
So allow me to put my two cents in this situation.
If the controversy surrounding the government’s response time to the victims of Hurricane Katrina taught us anything, it’s that the idea that a color-blind society is a lie.
The color-blind society is a myth that ranks right up there with the idea that Columbus discovered America. Furthermore, it has been my experience that when someone talks about a "color-blind society," it is usually code words for "I wish those people would just shut up and take the role we want to give them."
No matter how many times people can talk about Martin Luther King Jr. and bastardize his "I Have A Dream" speech, power in this country is defined by access. I see that in every facet of American society, from politics to even the gay rights movement.
And those of us not in the majority tend to have to be creative (and at times downright rude) to get that access. Having those Congressional caucuses allows minority groups to focus on how we can better serve this government and how it can better serve us.
So I really don't take stock in Mr. Tancredo's complaints.
I am too busy trying to get what every American has a right to: what is mine.
So we don't forget what this is all about
A good friend of mine, Joe Brummer, wrote something today that I felt is worth repeating. I hope he will forgive me for adding a little bit more to it.
Just like Joe, my argument is not against America's Christian community. When I make references to the anti-gay industry, I am not referring to people of faith.
If someone believes according to their religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin, then that is alright with me. I have friends who believe this, but yet they know of my orientation and show me no disrespect.
Nor do they feel the need to place ridiculous parameters on me in fear that just because I am gay, I am going to launch into an itemized list of my sexual happenings. They know me better than that and they have the presence of mind to know that being honest about my orientation is not the same thing as talking about sexual intercourse.
But there are a bunch of groups in this country who exploit the beliefs and egos of people of faith for political power. Using a standpoint that homosexuality is a sin, they rely on distortions of legitimate scientific work and junk science to influence public policy as it pertains to the gay community.
For that reason, they (i.e. Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, Traditional Values Coalition, American Family Association, etc) are the anti-gay industry.
Not only do they distort Christianity, but the common theme for these folks when they are caught in their lies is to claim that those who refute them are trying to "silence Christians."
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to know the difference between silencing someone and refuting someone's lies. No one should be given a free pass to influence public opinion and policy unchallenged. Especially if they:
refer to the studies of a discredited researcher as truth,
misuse the work of the legitimate researchers and physicians and ignore them when they complain, or
sell copies of a tape featuring a man who claimed to have been "freed from the bondage of homosexuality" when he was having sex in hotel rooms with gay men at the time he made the claim.
I personally don't want to shut up the anti-gay industry. By all means, keep talking. It makes the job of those trying to expose you easier.
According to news reports, U.S. Representative and wannabe presidential candidate Tom Tancredo wants to get rid of Congressional Black and Hispanic caucuses. He calls them racist because they supposedly focus on race.
Here we go; an item for Sean Hannity, John Gibson, and Bill O'Reilly to beat to death without courtesy of looking deeper at the issue.
Actually Tancredo's ignorance underscores an untalked about problem about race in this country. It used to be that some took the frame of mind of "so and so is from that race therefore he is inferior." Now people seem to be saying "so and so is from that race, but I can overlook it if he doesn't throw it in my face."
Seems to me that ignoring someone's cultural background is just as bad as discriminating against them because of it.
I am sure that sooner or later, the echo chamber of Fox News will focus on Tancredo's comments, conveniently ignoring the fact that story of the white legislator who turned down for membership in the Congressional Black Caucus (the story that started the entire mess) is not true. And I am sure that the guests they call to debate the point of view against Tancredo's comments will be "lukewarm liberals."
Or better yet, if these guests make even a substantial point against Tancredo's point of view, I am sure that O'Reilly, Hannity, Gibson, or whoever will conveniently interrupt them or try to lure them on some ideological tangent having nothing to do with Tancredo's comment.
So allow me to put my two cents in this situation.
If the controversy surrounding the government’s response time to the victims of Hurricane Katrina taught us anything, it’s that the idea that a color-blind society is a lie.
The color-blind society is a myth that ranks right up there with the idea that Columbus discovered America. Furthermore, it has been my experience that when someone talks about a "color-blind society," it is usually code words for "I wish those people would just shut up and take the role we want to give them."
No matter how many times people can talk about Martin Luther King Jr. and bastardize his "I Have A Dream" speech, power in this country is defined by access. I see that in every facet of American society, from politics to even the gay rights movement.
And those of us not in the majority tend to have to be creative (and at times downright rude) to get that access. Having those Congressional caucuses allows minority groups to focus on how we can better serve this government and how it can better serve us.
So I really don't take stock in Mr. Tancredo's complaints.
I am too busy trying to get what every American has a right to: what is mine.
So we don't forget what this is all about
A good friend of mine, Joe Brummer, wrote something today that I felt is worth repeating. I hope he will forgive me for adding a little bit more to it.
Just like Joe, my argument is not against America's Christian community. When I make references to the anti-gay industry, I am not referring to people of faith.
If someone believes according to their religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin, then that is alright with me. I have friends who believe this, but yet they know of my orientation and show me no disrespect.
Nor do they feel the need to place ridiculous parameters on me in fear that just because I am gay, I am going to launch into an itemized list of my sexual happenings. They know me better than that and they have the presence of mind to know that being honest about my orientation is not the same thing as talking about sexual intercourse.
But there are a bunch of groups in this country who exploit the beliefs and egos of people of faith for political power. Using a standpoint that homosexuality is a sin, they rely on distortions of legitimate scientific work and junk science to influence public policy as it pertains to the gay community.
For that reason, they (i.e. Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, Traditional Values Coalition, American Family Association, etc) are the anti-gay industry.
Not only do they distort Christianity, but the common theme for these folks when they are caught in their lies is to claim that those who refute them are trying to "silence Christians."
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to know the difference between silencing someone and refuting someone's lies. No one should be given a free pass to influence public opinion and policy unchallenged. Especially if they:
refer to the studies of a discredited researcher as truth,
misuse the work of the legitimate researchers and physicians and ignore them when they complain, or
sell copies of a tape featuring a man who claimed to have been "freed from the bondage of homosexuality" when he was having sex in hotel rooms with gay men at the time he made the claim.
I personally don't want to shut up the anti-gay industry. By all means, keep talking. It makes the job of those trying to expose you easier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)